User talk:Auron of Neon
3 things 1. I want o know what you think about some of the stuff in GuildWiki:Suggestions because I'd like to start implementing a couple of them. and 2. the acorns thing. I can see why you would feel that it doesn't belong in userspace but I don't know if its location as an orphaned talk is the best place. There have been times when content like that has simply been deleted as an orphaned talk page but it was a useful conversation about content and policy. Perhaps we can implement something in GuildWiki space like... GuildWiki:Non-orphaned talk pages. like we have for images? 3, 1 fame is so ftw. lol —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :Acorns is linked from GuildWiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved2 (and via redirect from GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete), it's not strictly orphaned. If a talk is relevant, you should always be able to make a link from the page or talk it has affected. --◄mendel► 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) ::There's a page like acorns you voted to keep, Jedi. Talk:Cracked Armour. It ended up not being an orphan, but the idea is the same. It's for historical reference. -- 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :::You don't delete/move talk pages for the hell of it. Talk:Girls on Top has been here for the majority of this wiki's life. Its article was deleted two years ago, but the talk page belongs nowhere except mainspace. Same with acorns. The discussion wasn't mendel's alone, nor did it apply to anything in his userspace, so it definitely doesn't belong there. :::If a talk page has no relevant information, deleting it is fine. But when it has pages of discussion, deletion is usually a bad idea. It doesn't do anything. It's not in anyone's way. They should be able to deal with the talk page existing. :::I wouldn't mind a category tag for the "orphaned" talk pages with historical purpose, but moving them anywhere would be a bad idea. Something like "don't delete this page, it's a discussion preserved for posterity." :::Suggestions page, eh? :::*Notable guilds ::::I'm not against it. The problem most people don't see is how hard finding information for these pages will be. Who's going to track down members of Final Destiny, Treacherous Empire, Idiot Savants, Esoteric Warriors, or any of the korean guilds that dominated back in the day? How will the limited information found be presented? Are the articles going to be up-to-date? Are they going to be unbiased? All these questions would have to be answered before that section even began. :::*Price Guide ::::Don't care either way. It won't hurt anything, as long as the price guides themselves are kept separate from the weapon articles we have now. :::*Guild Builds ::::Goes in userspace. Or on a subpage for a notable guild. Not enough good players to make this viable, most people would be listing their conjure flame barrage rangers. :::*Navigation ::::Just whining. No actual ideas presented to fix the problem. :::*PvP mode ::::More of the same. Needs solid improvements, not general stabbing in the dark. GWW has DPL lists with both pve and pvp skills. It's a bit clumsy, but at least all the information is presented. Maybe we could do something similar? :::*Galleries ::::Yes. :::*I18n template ::::Needs more information tbh. What the heck does it do? I read the entire suggestion page and couldn't figure it out. It just adds a link at the bottom that says "this page in French?" :::*Youtube and Screenshot links ::::Maybe. Youtube videos are often poor quality, and the comments are the worst on the web. I don't mind screenshots a whole bunch, but shouldn't we have relevant screenshots already uploaded to the wiki and linked? :::*Face and hair galleries ::::Waste of time. You can log on, and in seconds be viewing the in-game gallery. You can't do that with weapons or armor, which is why those galleries are a more feasible project. :::*Trade namespace ::::I like it. Before it's implemented, I'd like to check with Wikia and see if we could get trade-section-only sysops coded in, so we could get a little more help in the probably-busy section without recruiting full-time admins. :::*Mouseover on skill icons ::::Would be nice. Isn't necessary. Would require most people to rewrite their build code (the skill bar template) to the bbcode format. :::*R14 fame watch ::::Nice idea. Silly people on talk page. "Besides, who are they?" won that thread. -Auron 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC) :::::My guild said, "what would keep our r14s from lying about their fame?" lol. Also, if you are gonna make those redirects from the british names (i guess cause you read the cracked (i wrote cracker by mistake lol) armoUr article) you should add something to GW:REDIRECT about it. i dont mind it except that i am trying to encourage teh british to l2 spell. ya ya?—[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ::::::Meh. I didn't see a single solid argument against allowing the redirects, and I'll be damned if the majority wins out with poor logic. -Auron 10:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) May I comment? * Navigation :At least you acknowledge there's a problem. *Youtube and Screenshot links :relevant screenshots - sure, everything there's a consensus about, i.e. that most find relevant, we should have. The proposal entails writing pointers to info fewer people would find relevant. Which is why many people believe it doesn't belong on the wiki then. *trade-section-only sysops :If you can't trust a trade section sysop to stay away from mainspace if he's told to, you can't trust him with the trade section either. *Mouseover on skill icons :doesn't require people to rewrite anything, we just change the template to output bbcode (or whatever's needed). --◄mendel► 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ::No. *Navigation :I have no problems with navigating via the search bar. I'm capable of finding whatever I want on a wiki. I'm not acknowledging a problem as much as saying "stop whining and start making actual suggestions if you want to see it 'fixed.'" *Youtube etc :If it doesn't belong on the wiki, we wouldn't be linking to these videos from mainspace articles either. A horse, by any other name, is still a horse. (IMO, use the article's talk page for not directly relevant but potentially useful information). *trade-section-only sysops :Trust isn't the issue. We have wiki-wide sysops already, but they might not want to deal with that section; much like the builds back in the day, just because it's there doesn't mean the admins care enough to devote their time to it. :So we promote people to mod the section that *do* care about the section. It doesn't have to be very many people. Two or three plus the sysops we already have would be plenty. And lastly, there are people would who be great trade section mods who would fail at sys oping for the entire wiki. -Auron 00:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC) ::I should've been more clear about the trade admins. My opinion is that we don't need wikia to "code them in", just be clear about what their job is to be. --◄mendel► 06:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) so i herd your "Real name" is Eloc. Brr. (T/ ) 05:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, I changed it to that after eloc went around spamming people's RL names on their talk pages. -Auron 06:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC) ::I must have missed that, or do you mean on GWW? In any case, ":D" (T/ ) 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :::Yeah, GWW. -Auron 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :::: so i herd u liek babeh eating. box I love your box. Do you mind if I use it? --Shadowcrest 01:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) :I don't mind, but the guy who made it is User:Tycn. I had a contest on PvX for that kind of banner and his design won out. -Auron 06:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ::I like your box too, Auron. I wanna put my Onyx Scepter in it. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC) :::You can put scepters in my box all night long. -Auron 07:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ? 12:06, 3 August 2008 Auron of Neon (Talk | contribs) deleted GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/User:RoseOfKali ‎ (Moved) --- To where? RoseOfKali 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/RoseOfKali, to take out that "User:". --R Phalange 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :: ftw. --◄mendel► 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, you're not leaving redirects? Then I hope you are fixing all the links, since people do link to RfA pages once in a while. (T/ ) 08:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) ::::All the links was a good 5 or 6. -Auron 10:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) foiled I came up with the perfect name, but because of the max character limit (19) it is too long. Auron of Disenchantment. The Auron Is With Me is also just one character too long. And, since they won't accept apostrephes, Auron's Visage doesn't work either. :\ But don't worry, I will come up with something eventually. Is there a deadline? (T/ ) 04:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :I suggest "Auron Annoyer" or somesuch, as that is the primary purpose of the Mesmer: Pissing other casters off. [[user:Entrea|'Entrea']] [Talk] 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::My entry is the following: Auron Glamerslayer, not really funny, but it works with the other cats.-- ìğá†ħŕášħ 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :::Soonish is the only deadline. I want to get working on it before too long :p -Auron 05:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::::Here are some suggestions: Auron Sucks, Auron the Gimp, Auron is Bad, Auron the kinky... are you thinking of playing to the suggestive kink of memsers or more the role of mesmers? and do you even know how to play mesmer? its like hard and stuff. —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 05:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC) :::::I do midline almost exclusively. I'm good enough at war and derv to call for tombs, but I generally don't run those in GvG. -Auron 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::Auron Eats Spells. 13:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) "lighten up" No u. As a third party in this dispute (though admittedly with vested interests on both sides)... #Felix's comments came across as rude and uncalled for, in that tone at least. #...though admittedly I am not as satisfied with R.Phalange as I expected to be, so I can understand Felix's frustration. #Your ban came across as overzealous and slightly elitist. #...however considering your position in the matter I can see how easy it would be to overreact to something like this. (T/ ) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) ::Responding to your post here and on felix's talk... ::When warwick removed you from the active sysop list, you agreed with warwick. You didn't revert because you didn't think you were active. ::In this case, Phalange reverted, and felix got pissed off and commanded Phalange to contribute more or leave. The cases aren't remotely similar. If you'd reverted, warwick might have said nothing. Even if he did, it most likely would not have been rude. He most certainly would not have told you to GTFO the wiki if you weren't going to contribute more. ::Felix's comments came across as rude and uncalled for ::No, they were rude and uncalled for. I don't care how you want to interpret them (i.e., how they "came across"), there's no getting around that they were overly aggressive and assholish. ::I am not as satisfied with R.Phalange as I expected to be, so I can understand Felix's frustration. ::In a courtroom, motive is a big part of the length of the sentence, but people don't get off scott free just because the jury "understands their frustration." The block length was picked based on his number of past warnings, past blocks, length of past blocks, and the not-improving attitude. Had he been improving, or if he had meant to be nice but "came across" a little mean, the block might not have happened at all. However, because he had been warned and blocked for this behavior in the past, letting it slide was not an option. ::Your ban came across as overzealous and slightly elitist. ::Overzealous? Possibly, although I spent quite a bit of time thinking about it after I first discovered the post. I actually spent half an hour in-game before coming back and deciding that attitude was unacceptable, and proceeding to ban. Elitist? You'd have to explain yourself there. I don't expect anything out of Felix, so I'm not holding him to some standard of excellence. ::...however considering your position in the matter I can see how easy it would be to overreact to something like this. ::I thought I was quite clear in my explanation. It wasn't some instant knee-jerk reactionary ban. I was quite angry at first, but after thinking it over for awhile, I was able to read over some of the convos on his talk page and realize his behavior on Phalange's page wasn't irregular. Then I looked over his ban list, decided that since I had used one standard ban length down the last time, I would continue normally with an increasing block length. Since I had already picked a lower-than-the-standard block length for that user in the past (to give him the benefit of the doubt, and to "come across" as unbiased), I wasn't going to do so again, because that would make me unquestionably biased in his favor. ::I would prefer sysops discuss block lengths with me before unblocking. It's common courtesy, aside from being the obvious first step if you disagree with something. If they, for whatever reason, feel that they are above the need to discuss the block first, and proceed to unblock someone I've blocked, the least they could do is leave a note on my talk page about it. -Auron 09:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::How did I miss this.... Stupid monaco... —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 09:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::::I found it! I'm gonna enjoy reading this tomorrow. Also, while I'm on Auron's talk page, I'm going to say that Auron is bad and he took my HoH away... —[[User:JediRogue|'♥Jedi♥Rogue♥']] 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::::Thank you for your detailed and thought-out response, as always. For the record, you've been proven right this time. I am disappointed. Elitism - you have a (undeserved) reputation for being ban-trigger-happy, so this at first seemed like another "Auron Pulling /Rank for Friends". But in retrospect it was the correct decision. I ought to have waited longer before making such a judgment, since as this case clearly demonstrates, it is often the post-reaction which counts the most for posterity. :::::I'm also thinking of making it mandatory to discuss/leave notes about blocks before reverting (except in joke/test cases, of course) by amending GW:ADMIN or such; but I am loathe to take such a heavy-handed measure for something that should be common courtesy. (T/ ) 09:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) (Reset indent) Was this a GW:NPA ban? You say he said "GTFO", but the point his, he hasn't. The words were "Put up or shut up - If you claim to be active, please get to work. There's plenty of things to do. If not, just go away." IMO that falls short of this policy, especially if you consider the list of examples given in the policy, so unless we have other written grounds I'm not aware of, the ban was founded on Auron's autocratic admin power to act for the good of the wiki. It's a fact that we all wish Felix had expressed his feelings differently, but has he really crossed the line laid down in GW:NPA or elsewhere? GW:NPA doesn't mean "don't have conflicts on wiki", it says "conflicts are ok, but keep to a certain modicum of civility". If you want to enforce "don't be rude, don't be mean, don't be provocative, don't write stuff that's uncalled for, or you'll get blocked", we can just write GW:CAREBEAR now so everybody knows this. Auron is the last person I'd have expected to call for that, though. :-} --◄mendel► 14:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :Isn't that sort of comment to Phalange in particular double standards... IMO a lot of other admins are equally inactive these days. Jennalee 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::"Double standards" - good one, noted for GW:CAREBEAR draft. See GuildWiki talk:Administrator information for discussion about standards. ::Dr Ishmael has noted on User talk:R.Phalange - like a good wikidrama, this spreads across several pages - that Auron has raised the standards for R.Phalange when he promoted him. --◄mendel► 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::Even if the expectations were higher, no need for such hostility. Jennalee 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::::You're right, Felix has had a high level of hostility towards R.Phalange to begin with. I don't know where there's a page on the wiki where Felix explains this; the page where it was stated most succinctly has been deleted. It goes back to before the promotion. He apologized, though. --◄mendel► 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :(In response to mendel's first post) :The ban was a "you've been warned for this behavior in the past, been blocked for it in the past, and you still haven't improved. What the hell is wrong with you?" kind of deal. He didn't personally attack phalange. But he didn't have to. :GW:CAREBEAR isn't necessary. I see plenty of people (you included) that are fiery writers; stuff they post just makes people excited (for better or for worse). But in general, they're trying to do some good. They feel strongly about a project or a namespace and so they write from the heart, which in turn can piss people off. They "come across" as being provocative, but that's not their intent. :That is Felix's intent. His goal is more to rile (certain) people up than to fix potential problems, although the fixing makes a pretty good mask for any righteous crusade. If he really cared about Phalange's duties or abuse of power or whatever his problem was, he'd have either A. posted on that user's talk with a more diplomatic message and a hope for discussion, or B. contacted a bureaucrat. Instead, he posts on the sysop's talk page with a demand that the sysop conform to an arbitrary, personal definition of activity or leave the wiki. :To Jennalee; many admins are inactive. Most of the ones in the "active" category have edits every day. That's probably the crux of Felix's issue, although why he cares about which category Phalange is in is beyond me. -Auron 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::Auron, have you met your own expectations of posting on user's talk page with a diplomatic message, in this case? Well, you have ("Lighten up"), but you have blocked at the same time, which kind of negates the effort. ::When you write "his goal is" you assume bad faith, though you're not going to see it as assumption, but as proven. If you feel that Felix's behaviour is bad for the wiki (and take action based on that), why can't Felix feel that R.Phalange's behaviour is bad for the wiki? ::This is the second time your admin actions have blown an issue quite out of proportion, a behaviour which some editors hold against me on my RfA (I'm always innocent, of course :-J ). I'm not going to ban-tag you for trolling this time, though - it's to late now. :-P ::--◄mendel► 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :::Good faith should not be assumed in the face of evidence or actions to the contrary, etc. (deleted "hitlist") But I get the feeling that all these accusations and counter-accusations of AGF'ing is just obfuscating the original issue. I'm sorry I brought it up. :::I don't think the ban itself is all that bad in terms of actions which inflamed the issue (though people seem to think that if it was shorter it would be less problem) - more damage was caused by things said after that, which probably would have been said regardless. (T/ ) 07:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :::(At mendel, point by point) :::Yes. I've posted on his talk page (and other places) in the past to request an improvement in behavior. We're past that point now. No, the block doesn't negate the effort. He is perfectly able to come back in a week and respond to me. That's how blocks have worked for 2+ years on this wiki, I don't see why it would be any different here. The discussion isn't going to disappear in the meantime. :::He can feel Phalange's behavior is bad for the wiki all he wants. However, that isn't his complaint, and if it is, he hasn't said it anywhere. I've already stated the best courses of action if that was his complaint to begin with - talk it out with him or go to a bureaucrat. He's done neither, to my knowledge, instead favoring a confrontational approach with little chance of changing the current situation. :::The issue has not been blown out of proportion; it's right where it should be. Ample discussion, but no name calling and no hard feelings. Never forget: discussion =/= wikidrama. :::I'm angry at the lack of teamwork shown by the sysops, particularly the premature unblocking, but I hope we've learned to communicate more before taking actions in ignorance. -Auron 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC) ::::To last point: few of the sysops are brave/stupid enough to get involved in these sorts of issues, not in the way that you'd wish. It's not the duties they feel comfortable with / "signed up for". Some have even sworn off dealing with you for permanently, so...meh. Maybe that's my fault for promoting such sysops. Or you. I dunno. (T/ ) 07:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :::::It's not about (counter-)accusations, it's about figuring out by what standard Felix's behaviour is reprehensible that doesn't also also cover ours. It's not covered by GW:NPA, it might be GW:AGF, but as Entropy notes, that gets us nowhere. :::::Is provoking bad? The problem is, for a provocation to harm the wiki, there must be a reaction. On Felix Omni#I'm asking you nicely..., there wasn't much of one, and wiki disruption did not occur. Even in the current case, R.Phalange has not reacted, and thuse wiki disruption could have been avoided, had Auron not been provoked into blocking. It is very hard to judge intent of such a provocation that hasn't really occurred - even when Felix provoked Entropy back in June, Felix's words by themselves allowed no such judgment, the provocation resulted from the history Felix and Entropy had. :::::Auron writes that intent counts: getting into a fight for the good of the wiki is ok, getting into a fight just because you want to win is not. It comes down to judging not behaviour, but intent. Auron feels safe in doing so even when he hasn't asked Felix about his intent. The problem is that it is hard for other people to follow this kind of judgment, as it is almost entirely subjective. :::::That is why judging people by intent alone by law is usually restricted to totalitarian states where a certain arbitrariness "for the common good" is to be expected. In a community where you have to justify your actions to others basing judgment on presumed intent alone is usually not possible. :::::Auron is trying to do that - he adresses Dr Ishmael, saying "Felix's attitude was poor and his comments were in bad faith", supporting this with his authority (as he had supported R.Phalange's promotion). :::::This presents some difficulty: not for Auron, as he's always right, but for me, as I have more trouble figuring that out. Ultimately, submitting to an authority that hasn't proven itself to me is dissatisfying at best (Dr Ishmael has expressed that feeling more succinctly, though). --◄mendel► 13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::Do you... have a point? You talk alot, but it seems to be mostly aimed at yourself. -Auron 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::Executive summary of my previous post: Auron, your justification for the ban and a reban is "I'm Auron". --◄mendel► 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::You have indeed missed the point. His unwarranted trolling, a behavior which he's displayed (and been banned for) in the past, was the justification for his ban. Me being who I am has nothing to do with his behavior problems, although that summary did give me quite a chuckle. -Auron 05:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::::When someone goes to jail, there are two causes: the criminal behaviour, and the law. In this instance, YOU are the law. YOU are the one who decides what "unwarrented trolling" is, YOU were the one who banned him for that in the past, there is no way for me or anyone else to reliably recognize "unwarranted trolling". The behaviour can't be the justification, the behaviour is the subject of the ban, and you justify the ban by explaining how that behaviour is banworthy. I've been asking and drawing a blank. On other issues that appeared self-evident to old wiki hands, Pan Sola or Entropy have been able to provide explanations, reasons and rationales upon my asking. Of course, you can always doubt my ability to reason the situation out thoroughly. --◄mendel► 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Of course Auron is the law. He's the one who decides the block is worthy and then does the action. It could be the other way around, with Auron issuing a ban-notice and some other admin taking the action themselves. Would that be sufficient? To be honest, I find Auron's explanation to be satisfactory. Felix did something ban-worthy in the past and then he made a similar action again, so he was again banned. Maybe it was Auron both times; is it really bias that you are trying to call out? I know that some would say my judgment of this would be biased also, but then again, wouldn't yours also be Mendel? Since if I recall correctly you opposed the previous block('s justification) also. ::::::::::"there is no way for me or anyone else to reliably recognize 'unwarranted trolling'" - this is left up to the discretion of the individual sysops. In most cases, I think a header of "Put up or shut up" and a message to walk the walk or get off the Wiki, is what could be called unwarranted trolling. Now, perhaps if R.Phalange had been taking every opportunity to flaunt his fabulousness and pull /rank over non-admins and claim he was the saviour of the Wiki, that would be another matter. But he really hasn't done that. You can argue about the degree of warrant-ness, but it was certainly offensive if not trollish. ::::::::::Wiki disruption is justification for a ban. Offensive/trollish messages on a talkpage are disruptive to the Wiki for three main reasons. One, is that they hinder the recipient's ability to perform normal everyday Wiki duties by making them angry/resentful/hurt/etc. Even if they never read them (unlikely with that big New Messages box) or delete the message immediately, the damage is done to anyone who reads it; bad vibes spread easily, sowing the seeds of discontent etc. Two, there is GW:NPA, GW:AGF, GW:YAV, etc. Even if the message doesn't explicitly break any of these policies, it is not a condoned behavior and letting it pass with no reaction whatsoever is the same as condonement. This sets a precedent for future incidents of the same kind which erodes the "strength" of the policies. It takes time to "can" an incident, and as you can see we are still talking about it. This is time which could be more constructively spent on other issues (not to imply that this discussion is insignificant, though) - so in this way, an offensive message becomes a distraction. Finally, three, there is the issue of safety, comfort, and a non-hostile working environment. All editors are entitled to a Wiki where they can "post their opinions without fear of retribution" (to paraphrase Felix's own words). That's the spirit of a Wiki - an open source encyclopedia that anyone big or small can edit, where we all stand more or less on the same degree of importance. An integral part of maintaining this balance is that users offer at least courtesy if not respect to their peers. This is why even though anyone can say anything; it's in the best interests of the community to always try to remain civil. Everyone deserves respect, even if they haven't won yours; it is damaging to both parties when incivility arises. Basically, offensive/trollish messages are detrimental to the sense of community. The one (and still controversial) exception is community-wide outrage at an entity such as Gravewit or Wikia, which can sometimes help to bind us but at other times make us less cohesive because shared hatred isn't an effective form of bonding. (T/ ) 08:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::Ok, if I read you correctly, you are basically saying "some people recognize trolling, it's bad, and we do need to do something about it". I believe the method of choice is wiki diplomacy, but I'm going to suggest arbitration on the admin noticeboard (I may not get around to it this morning - we'll see). --◄mendel► 07:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Go for it, mendel. But beware your reasons for doing so. ::::::::::::I'd like to echo one of Entropy's points; I might have been the one to ban him both times for that behavior, but that doesn't make me biased. Look at, for example, my block log. Gares banned me the first time for pretty clear-cut NPA violations. I was okay with that. Gares then banned me the second time for an "age-ist" remark, from some offhand comment I'd made saying the author acted like a 12 year old. I (to this day) don't think that the "ageist" comment violated policy, but it frankly didn't matter. I hadn't gotten the picture yet, so he felt an additional ban was necessary. That additional ban did the trick. I stopped personally attacking people, and starting cleaning up my act. ::::::::::::For your information, though, nobody thought Gares was biased. Even though the second ban was very very iffy (definitely off actual policy pages and well into discretion), nobody cried wolf. Nobody whined that I was being singled out; not even me. I'm not sure if people are just playing favorites with Felix or if the entire community has just grown more carebear, but I'm disheartened at this pointless change in community perspective. -Auron 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::The ageist remark was the reason for the first ban, there was no GW:NPA then, but Gares had proposed something similar on User:Gares_Redstorm/Action - "maturity and courtesy towards other users" is the norm, and you vioated that again 2 weeks later, which got you your second ban. I don't know what happened in teh meantime, but 5 months later, you were merely getting warned, not banned any more, and certainly not with a stepped up interval. :::::::::::::"Adminning takes lots of work, and I've always respected all of you. When a few of you started acting like blind zealots, that respect took a hit." Would you have thought twice about a ban from an admin you didn't respect? What would happen if I were an admin and banned you? You'd hardly react in the same way. I don't see you being in the position to influence Felix the way Gares influenced you. Frankly, Entropy talking to him achieved much more. :::::::::::::What makes you look biased is not the repeated banning. What makes you look biased is that you have issues with Felix's long-term behaviour which you made part of your ban reason (and that's how this differs from Gares banning you). That is your bias! I observe that this way to adress these kinds of issues leads to wiki disruption. There must be a better way. --◄mendel► 08:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC) RI You're right, the ageist remark was the first ban. I sort of cleaned up my act by not outright attacking anyone, but I slipped in a few degrading comments anyway (ones that weren't technically personal attacks)- which I got banned for. That's what woke me up. Would I have thought twice about a ban from an admin I didn't respect? Most likely. Would I circumvent it or pretend it never happened? No. Would I be dumb enough to think it was bias, or that I was being persecuted and singled out? No. That's where the difference lies. He flat-out ignores the bans because he thinks he's above them. Even if someone like Karlos had banned me (or Lemming64 on gww), I would accept it, even if I didn't agree with it. What is my bias exactly? I have issues with Felix acting like a douche. I don't have issues with him when he isn't acting like a douche - we talk on IRC all the time. I don't hate him as a person, nor do I have anything against him in general. I just don't like when he doesn't mind his behavior. Since he's been warned and blocked for it in the past, it's not my normal course of action to keep handing out warnings. What part of that is bias? Thinking that telling someone to contribute more or leave is rude/unacceptable? I'm really not following you here. -Auron 10:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC) :"He flat-out ignores the bans because he thinks he's above them." I don't see that, can you support that statement? --◄mendel► 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC) ::20:07, 25 May 2008 Auron of Neon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Felix Omni (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 10 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Personal attack and general asshattery) ::20:08, 25 May 2008 Felix Omni (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Felix Omni (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Well aren't you cute.) ::Really now. -Auron 17:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Slightly related, but not related enough by standards ::I think it isn't about what "category" Pling/Phal/Brains is in. It's about the fact you honestly don't see Phal moving, shaking, causing massive eruptions or whatever you expected from him. And, that he indeed doesn't post daily, but that's not the main point (Remember, it's still only what I think). --- -- (s)talkpage 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::That's what I'm concerned about, too. Auron, you created the expectation that Phalange was going to be an extremely active admin because of certain assertions you made: "This wiki needs help. In case you didn't notice, it is dying. If nothing ever changes, it will die." --/Archive 13, the implication being that Phalange was to be the "help" that we needed, that he would make these "changes" that would keep the wiki from dying. This has not happened, and that is my concern with this whole issue. —Dr Ishmael 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::::You do realize that's completely unrelated to Felix's blocking, right? -Auron 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::::You do realise you said "To Jennalee; many admins are inactive. Most of the ones in the "active" category have edits every day. That's probably the crux of Felix's issue, although why he cares about which category Phalange is in is beyond me. ", and that people may respond to a comment? --- -- (s)talkpage 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) ::::::New threads would be appreciated for unrelated topics. -Auron 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::::::K. --- -- (s)talkpage 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) This topic is not related to the rest of the page I'm constructing a map of Guildwiki, do you live above or below Entropy?-- ìğá†ħŕášħ 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC) :West. -Auron 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC) ::I'd advise checking the interweb map for directions --Gimmethegepgun 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)